I usually agree with game journalists. I treat what they say as gospel for the most part, weeding out the hyperbole whenever necessary. But the game critic is a stubborn creature. When the consensus on a game is that of disappointment, few feel the need to jump off the train and say something different. The most recent case is on Resident Evil 5, Capcom's follow-up to 2005's classic RE4. As soon as critics saw that the sequel would be a continuation of the prior game's control scheme instant depression fell over the game journalism world. Surely a game that doesn't do the same paradigm shift that part four did can't be worth our time, right?

Wake up, critics- expecting the crew to do another Resident Evil redux is just not a realistic expectation. New hardware doesn't have to mean new game mechanics; why can't we just enjoy a fancier, shiner version of the fun we had in RE4? Every professional review I've read dwells on how it doesn't innovate, following this up with discussion about how fun it is in co-op. Hello guys, innovation's staring you in the face! Surely having back-up from a sultry, high-kicking partner lessens the RE series' trademark eerieness, but whoever still thinks Resident Evil is a survival horror franchise after 4 is in that river in Egypt. You know, 'da Nile. Not all of co-op works (the inventory system, although interesting, sometimes makes for awkward item swapping), but it ups the importance of the combat scenarios. Playing through the game in co-op is an extremely fun experience, especially for a game that I went into expecting to hate.

I simply wish that instead of comparing it to its predecessor critics would compare Resident Evil 5 to other co-op shooter experiences like Gears of War 2 (a series that, ironically, owes a lot to RE4- just ask Cliffy). Treated as a seperate action game with no ties to a storied franchise would have allieviated a lot of the issues that the journalists have been discussing.

As for the racism thing? Now that's just stupid.

Tags: